Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rather found that they merely voiced their disagreements with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and resubmitted their submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. In sum, the Appellants did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Moreover, one of the Appellants raised the claim that there was a connection between the termination of his service and his suspension from duty for possible misconduct, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this ground was not receivable as it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment: The Applicants contested the decisions to separate them from service, as they had not been appointed to alternative posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT consolidated the applications, given their similar natures. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT noted that the Agency had made reasonable efforts to find the Applicants suitable placements, that their appointments with the Agency were properly terminated on 31 March 2014, and that the relief sought by the Applicants had no basis in fact or in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the applications.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and, thus, is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to argue his or her case anew. An appellant cannot merely repeat arguments that did not succeed before the lower court. The function of the Appeals Tribunal is to determine if the first instance tribunal made errors of fact or law, exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, as prescribed in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the judgment they seek to challenge is defective. It follows that the appellant must identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting said deficiency. An appellant may not bring issues before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that were not previously raised before the first instance tribunal.